BoxRec

Joe Louis would have capitalized on Woodcock's often exposed chin, Woodcock was leading Mauriello bigtime and shouldn't have lost that fight - such is boxing!

Later too he was the same against Savold, beating him untill the cut stoppage. But I'll tell you, Woodcock vs Louis circa 1946/47 would have been massive and though the smart money would have been on Joe, Woodcock at least had a punchers chance!

another one for ring side seats in Boxing Heaven.

jimglen wrote:Joe Louis would have capitalized on Woodcock's often exposed chin, Woodcock was leading Mauriello bigtime and shouldn't have lost that fight - such is boxing!

Later too he was the same against Savold, beating him untill the cut stoppage. But I'll tell you, Woodcock vs Louis circa 1946/47 would have been massive and though the smart money would have been on Joe, Woodcock at least had a punchers chance!

another one for ring side seats in Boxing Heaven.

Is there any film of Woodcock-Mauriello?

Boxing is a stamina game--both mentally and physically.

Maybe Woodcock was a "five-round fighter" when he faced better opposition.

Jim Corbett's comment on Jack Sharkey after the Dempsey-Sharkey fight is significant.

Corbett wrote, "Maybe Sharkey is a three round fighter."

Sharkey did very well against the old Dempsey in the first rounds, then Dempsey got his bearings and the fight changed in his favor.

Lee Savold returning to America after loss to Bruce Woodcock(1949)

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=26452

my father fought on the same bill at the albert hall 1945

Too bad even with the loss to Mauriello that Woodcock never got a shot at the World HWY title.
Would have been interesting.

...i agree brutu.....sometimes one round knockouts ARE interesting...